Dua, J. - (1.) THESE (Civil Revisions No. 521 of 1963 and No. 522 of 1963) are two connected revisions under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act No. 3 of 1949), and arise out of eviction proceedings by the landlords against the tenant (Petitioner in this Court).
(2.) IT is unnecessary to state full facts giving rise to the controversy. Suffice it to say that the learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on the 29th of March 1963 against the tenant on the basis of his failure to pay or tender the rent due by him. On appeal the appellate authority disposed of the appeals with the following observations which appear to be the real basis of its decision: - As already stated Smt. Gopal Kaur has denied that she had received the payments or executed or signed the receipts in dispute. One of the three disputed receipts (Exhibit R. 2) has been attested by two persons who were examined by the Appellant before the learned Rent Controller, but she did not feel impressed by their evidence. She had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of these witnesses while under examination and her assessment of their testimony should not be lightly ignored. Both these witnesses had social or business dealings with the Appellant as would be natural in a case where a party has to fabricate a document in collusion with some others. He would naturally select persons who could be depended upon to support him in Court and if it is shown that all the attesting witnesses stand in a position of confidence with respect to one party while the other party enjoys no such advantage then the Courts would be rather careful in accepting the testimony of the witnesses having dealings with only one of the parties. It then proceeded to deal with the Appellant's argument that the landlords would not have allowed arrears of rent to accumulate for so many months, but this submission was considered to be fallacious because Exhibit R. 2 itself purported to be in respect of eight months' rent and on previous occasions also rent for long periods remained unpaid.
(3.) ON revision before me it has been contended that the appellate authority should have itself discussed the evidence and come to an independent conclusion and not disposed of the appeal virtually on the basis of the conclusion of the Rent Controller. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that it is wholly unnecessary to discuss the other evidence on the record and that if the receipt (Exhibit R. 2) is not held to be a genuine document, then default in payment of rent would be conclusively established and this default would amply justify the order of eviction. As regards the decision in respect of Exhibit R. 2 the learned Counsel has submitted that the appellate authority was justified in adopting the conclusion of the Rent Controller on the question of fact, since no special feature was pointed out to it for taking a different view.;